in cab facing cameras

[G136GREYHOUND]

I am dead against it.

The reasons ?

1) Almost everything I do is recorded on the OTDR which is already randomly downloaded, on a regular basis and used to assess my driving. Why do you need CCTV watching me as well - and no doubt it would be viewable live by someone who knows nothing about train driving in some office somewhere at some point in it's useage

2) A train cab for a driver is NOT like a bus, we do not take money, we are unlikely to have an altercation or be assaulted by a passenger when in our cab.

3) You are stuck in your cab for up to 5 hours at a stretch, I really don't want 5 hours of me picking my nose, flicking the contents, farting, scratching my butt etc. on CCTV. As you are trapped in the cab in effect, almost every driver has had to pee in a bottle at some point too

4) It's not just drivers it affects, guards sit in the rear cab and would be on CCTV at all times too.

5) You just know it would be used against you on a regular basis : "You looked a little tired at such and such a time, " or : "We felt you were not looking out the front for long enough at such and such a point" etc., etc..

6) How much more lack of trust, monitoring and micro managing ? Next step is to have someone in the cab watching you live at all times, who watchers the watcher ?

7) Every solution - solution to what ? - leads inevitably to another problem
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't see what the problem is. I know you might say nanny state, big brother and all that, but I drive a car with a dashcam that also films the driver. If anything, it makes life safer all round. You know you're on camera, so you know your safe if anything does happen, as they can see you were doing the right thing.

Dashcam is your choice mate, BIG difference

 

[notadriver]

Planes don't have these cameras. Neither should trains. Both are jobs with trusted professionals at the controls who have had to undergo a long training regime, pass multiple exams and are monitored by recording devices.
There is no comparison with Lorry or bus driving where cameras are a way of improving driver behaviour.

 

[kieron]

As clearly stated the DSM did not believe he was using a mobile phone. With in cab CCTV I believe that DM's will regularly pull the CCTV to check for things like mobile phone usage.

I'm a little confused about all these references people are making to mobile 'phones in this thread. The report into that incident demonstrates that the RAIB doesn't need CCTV to show that a driver has been using a 'phone while on duty.

CCTV footage is rarely kept for long, so it wouldn't be too useful for someone trying to trawl through the footage for evidence of previous misconduct.

The report states the DM had concerns that he was driving a certain way because he was being observed. This is a common problem with FDA's Whatever the other concerns were they haven't been mentioned.

Sorry, you're right. I'd imagined SPADTrap was looking for more detail about the way in which the driver's actions were of concern, but that's all the report says about it.

Would CCTV have proven anything ? Unless the CCTV is pulled on a regular basis then it still wouldn't have addressed the DM's concerns.

We can't now know what a hypothetical CCTV system would have shown. It could have filled in some of the blanks in the report, and (depending on the details) may have been able to show the extent to which the driver complied with parts of his CDP that day. The report mentions that the driver is no longer employed by GWR. I don't know if it's conceivable that this could have been avoided had more evidence been available of what happened.

CCTV's real value would be if it could make incidents less likely, by helping to identify risky practices so that steps can be taken to discourage them.

 

[Lockwood]

At work we have mandatory dashcams for accident purposes. We have been told that their microphones have been muted.

Some vehicles also have internal cameras in the back of the vehicle for crime prevention/crew safety. These are randomly reviewed and from these random viewings, disciplinary processes have been started.

It is widely believed by staff that the cab microphones are live and also randomly monitored. There are anecdotes about microphone recordings being used for disciplinary purposes (other than driving related)

This doesn't hang over us like a constant shadow, but is something else that we think about on and off. Pretty much, we lay off of the bad taste jokes as much as we can and have private conversations with our crewmate outside of the vehicle, or switch the engine off first.


I can understand entirely why train drivers, who have enough to think about, would be opposed to having the cameras fitted.

 

[bramling]

I'm a little confused about all these references people are making to mobile 'phones in this thread. The report into that incident demonstrates that the RAIB doesn't need CCTV to show that a driver has been using a 'phone while on duty.

CCTV footage is rarely kept for long, so it wouldn't be too useful for someone trying to trawl through the footage for evidence of previous misconduct.

Sorry, you're right. I'd imagined SPADTrap was looking for more detail about the way in which the driver's actions were of concern, but that's all the report says about it.

We can't now know what a hypothetical CCTV system would have shown. It could have filled in some of the blanks in the report, and (depending on the details) may have been able to show the extent to which the driver complied with parts of his CDP that day. The report mentions that the driver is no longer employed by GWR. I don't know if it's conceivable that this could have been avoided had more evidence been available of what happened.

CCTV's real value would be if it could make incidents less likely, by helping to identify risky practices so that steps can be taken to discourage them.

I would imagine that the proven use of a mobile device whilst operating the train may well be linked to the fact that he no longer works for FGW/GWR.

Generally speaking the 'done' thing when in this position is often to resign prior to any disciplinary actions.

Notwithstanding the personal issues, I tend to agree with the sentiment that the driver's prior record isn't, on the face of it, bad at all. Fails to call aren't necessarily unsafe, and defensive/professional driving policies are a matter of opinion (although compliance with them isn't).

I don't see what an in-cab camera might have picked up regarding the full power on yellows that couldn't already be identified via OTMR. As for behaviours, the mobile phone use MAY have been identified but only if there was a programme of random observation that was either sufficiently laborious to go through many hours of footage, or just happening to hit lucky. We have to be realistic and say we simply can't mitigate against everything, for me the objective should be to treat the driver as a professional as far as possible.

 

[Jamesb1974]

Deleted

 

[FordFocus]

One option the RSSB were looking at is for the CCTV to look at the controls only and not the entire person including the speedo, air pressures, DSD, AWS, TPWS status and power brake controller position.

Guess what other piece of equipment onboard trains records the same information and has done for nearly a decade? The On Train Monitoring Recorder.

Dashcams have also been known to prove the dashcam owner to be at fault at times. Jumping a red line into oncoming traffic was one case I've heard about.

 

[Jamesb1974]

Deleted

 

[G136GREYHOUND]

I'm a driver and I'm firmly against it. The questionnaire link (now dead), was working when I filled it in. One of the questions was something along the lines of "what are your views on live time monitoring by management?" (that isn't word for word btw).


My reasons for opposing the cameras are as follows (apologies if they overlap what others have said);

1) The Qtron/black box/OTDR records everything I do and is downloaded as part of my competency assessment. What is the need to have a camera pointed at me and what are they expecting to find by doing so? If I have the engine in notch eight, what is the need to visually confirm it when the OTDR is providing that information anyway?

2) I don't want to be held to account for every little thing I do. For example, if I'm waiting at a red and decide to get up for a pee, would I need to justify why I'd left the cab? Similarly, if I decided that I'd had enough of having my fillings loosened by the vibration from a class 66 and decided to have five minutes off the engine, to get some fresh air, would I have to justify this as well?

I can see questions like this forming part of any assessment/download that uses in cab cctv. "On 21st April, between 00.45 and 00.51 you got up and left the cab. Why?" I might have worked another 30 turns since that date, so am I going to be asked to account for every time I did something other than sit in the seat?

3) It smacks of a complete lack of trust in my abilities to do my job without being watched. It further smacks of a culture where the word of an employee is no longer trusted, the only option being to remove the employees account from the equation and watch what he/she does for yourself.

4) Coming back to the quote at the beginning of my post regarding live time monitoring. Why? What is the need? Why would a manager want to watch me remotely, to see what I'm doing? Come and ride out with me and see what I'm doing for real. The only benefit I can see is to save the manager coming out! If live time monitoring is available, does it then follow that the person doing the monitoring doesn't need to know the road and how to drive the train? Any fool can watch a computer screen.

Lastly, it really p*sses me off that wedges of cash get thrown at projects like this, yet the actual working conditions are ignored. The passenger guys may have it easier, but when money apparently seems to be freely available for things like this, yet we can't come up with a cost-effective solution to reduce in-cab noise and heat on a Class 66, it does rather stick in the throat.

We'll happily watch you working, but we won't do anything to make it more comfortable :x

That's a really good point, it would be a wedge of wonga, which could be better spent in so many other places

 

[ComUtoR]

I'm a little confused about all these references people are making to mobile 'phones in this thread. The report into that incident demonstrates that the RAIB doesn't need CCTV to show that a driver has been using a 'phone while on duty

Because if used routinely the CCTV will catch people on their mobile phones. The only reason why the guy got caught was because he had an incident, and was honest and handed over his mobile phone (was it a company one ?)

It will also catch people reading a paper whilst driving :/

 

[hounddog]

I'd much rather unprofessional drivers got found out before they 'have an incident' than in the aftermath of one. But hey, I'm only a passenger.

 

[BestWestern]

The main reason for buses having a CCTV camera pointed at them and the controls is because they don't have OTMR data recorders like trains do.

The main reason for an internal camera on a bus is to record the behaviour of passengers, that's why the entire inside of the vehicle is monitored by them. The one pointing at the cab is there for the same reason there is often a big sheet of perspex as well; to deter robbery and aggressive behaviour. Having said that, I would happily bet that management will download the cab footage if an incident occurs, to go with the external recordings.

Vehicles increasingly are fitted with a roadgoing equivalent of OTMR, the dreaded Drivegreen or Greenroad systems. These use various measures to record the manner in which the vehicle is being driven, and even give the driver a 'score' for each journey! Something the railway industry has thankfully yet decided to do with OTMR!

 

[AlterEgo]

I'd much rather unprofessional drivers got found out before they 'have an incident' than in the aftermath of one. But hey, I'm only a passenger.

How would that happen when the CCTV proposed is only to be viewed in the event of an incident?

Or are you proposing 24/7 monitoring of every camera, presumably by an army of retired football referees?

 

[Jamesb1974]

Deleted

 

[Flamingo]

How would that happen when the CCTV proposed is only to be viewed in the event of an incident?

Or are you proposing 24/7 monitoring of every camera, presumably by RailUK forum members?

There you go, fixed that for you